It's a load of bunk. (Biggest bit: A knife fight today is the same as a knife fight 10,000 years ago. Technology advances, but only to physical limits. Oh, and not only does nobody remember the Indians that Columbus met, but most Native peoples don't date themselves as "Post-Columbian" and "Pre-Columbian.")

Anyway, if an alien shows up and decides to "make contact", they'll be in one of two situations.

1: They didn't plan it, and this is an emergency or an accident. Offer help if you can, but only if they accept it. Mostly, just stay the @#$ out of their way and try not to get killed. And for the love of god, don't kill them until they've killed one of us. (Yes, that probably means that "first contact bob" would be "first trophy bob." if they're here to hunt. Sucks to be bob.)

2; They did plan it, and made contact deliberately. It doesn't take more than a day to notice that the species creating buildings and machines and launching crap into space is sentient, and they'll learn a hell of a lot more about us by watching us for another day or two rather than picking one of us at random and watching us flail around. Greet them in your common habit and vernacular FIRST, and only resort to random flailings and scribbling on the floor if they don't respond.

Duncan Lunan from ASTRA [easynet.co.uk] wrote a couple of books on the subject in the early 1970s and basically fleshed out the possibilities you outlined, going through various permutations, including ones where we initiate contact, either inside our own solar system or outside. It was an interesting read but don't know if the books are accessible on the web yet.

I agree with your 1 or 2. But the writer's point about vast technological differences is really true, probably more-so than he realizes. And I do agree with the writer that alien contact will be such a HUGE deal to society as a whole, that it very well could be the sort of year 0 thing he suggests.

And I totally agree that they'll know we're sentient, and odds are good they'll be able to have perfect translators pretty damn quickly once they've come into contact with our radio transmissions, if they're ab

We regularly leave our planet by use of technology and have harnessed the power of the atom?
That's not to say it's enough, but those are at least two things that would probably differentiate us quite a bit.

But if we're not 6-dimensional beings and don't *smell* the *pretty* colors, we might seem like a talking dog or a counting horse. They might be amazed by the dog (but will never consider it an equal), but they'll only be temporarily amused by the horse until they wanted to ride somewhere, make some glue, or eat horse-chops.

Strange magical physics don't even have to be in play; the aliens only have to believe that quality X is more important than intelligence (or that quality X denotes intelligence), and if we don't have it, then we're defacto non-intelligent.

Strange magical physics don't even have to be in play; the aliens only have to believe that quality X is more important than intelligence (or that quality X denotes intelligence), and if we don't have it, then we're defacto non-intelligent.

John Varley wrote some novels with this as part of the back story. The aliens felt that there were only two types of intelligence: cetaceans and a kind living in gas giants. They kicked humans off earth and left them to live like rats on the moon and other inhospitable places. In The Ophichi Hotline [amazon.com] he even imagined us getting in contact with other species who had suffered the same fate.

It's a load of bunk. (Biggest bit: A knife fight today is the same as a knife fight 10,000 years ago. Technology advances, but only to physical limits. Oh, and not only does nobody remember the Indians that Columbus met, but most Native peoples don't date themselves as "Post-Columbian" and "Pre-Columbian.")

Um... No.

In fact if an Native American met a crusader knight wearing chainmail, he's have a hard time killing him with a knife.

Actually, during Columbus's time, they still wore plate armor much of the tim

3) They might be criminals, political refugees, or any other "undesirable" on the run, who see our remote backward world as a good hideout (this falls somewhere between "planned" and "seredipitous" at least for them). Maybe the scum of their species, maybe the oppressed. Maybe they'll think "Cool, suckers to exploit!" or bring down their version of the law on our heads for harbouring a fugitive.

They might be criminals, political refugees, or any other "undesirable" on the run, who see our remote backward world as a good hideout (this falls somewhere between "planned" and "seredipitous" at least for them). Maybe the scum of their species, maybe the oppressed.

So it's 1620 all over again, but this time we're all Red Indians and the pilgrims are green?

The aliens will be quite used to things flailing like crazy and trying to get away... They know this is what non-self-aware organisms do.

Well, except plants -- those stand still. So standing still or moving tells them nothing.

The fact that you're still alive will mean they're going to allow us to exist.

Tell that to any barnyard animal. Maybe they're not hungry yet?

I mean, I'll agree that fighting is probably futile, but you never know. We don't know how to defend against a nuke, but we do actually know about enough to visit other planets, if we were willing to expend the resources and wait the insane amonut of time.

They won't speak your language, and won't be able to mess with your thoughts.

That's pretty good; also pretty funny, it's obvious they were going for the humor angle. I do like the math bit.

One caveat; any aliens that meet us here on Earth (which is where it will happen, at least for some decades, more likely centuries) will likely have been watching our radio/tv/digital output and have a pretty good idea of what is going on, if they can decode our transmissions. (I think it's likely they will be able to, any aliens with the technology to travel across interstellar s

any aliens with the technology to travel across interstellar space would have to have some pretty phenomenal computer technology

The only thing safe to assume about aliens is that they will be ALIEN. As in, completely unlike us in every way. It's a mistake to terrestrialize ETs, let alone anthropomorphize them. Their concept of 'communication', let alone their culture and motivations, will likely be be so wildly different than ours as to be beyond our ability to even conceive of it.
Hell, we have a hard enough time understanding and communicating with other HUMAN cultures. Aliens, especially aliens sophisticated enough to cross interstellar distances? Forget about it.

I see your point, but if there are aliens who are capable of traveling across interstellar space and navigating it without computer technology of some sort, there will likely never EVER be any common ground with us to communicate thru.

We rely on our technology for communications, more and more so the more technically advanced we get. Any form of communication has to have some sort of symbolic nature, otherwise it's not communication.

Like I said elsewhere, unless they communicate via telepathy, there has to be at least some common ground, technology wise. However, just because WE can't understand THEM, doesn't mean that THEY won't be able to understand US.

At the risk of providing fodder for fruitcakes, technically they could already be living amongst us, and we'd never know they were there. I am familiar with Clarke's Law wrt advanced technology...

I think it much more likely that any aliens who would go to the trouble of trying to contact us - as a species - via a means we are familiar with would use the means of communication we are capable of detecting.

As far as I am aware, the formation of organic life has been generally considered extremely likely since, like, the fifties [wikipedia.org]. It's even been shown that organic molecules are relatively common in deep space [space.com].

As it stands - we don't know -what- a particular alien civilization might enjoy... perhaps they're big fans of WW2 and want to include us in an intergalactic battle. Or maybe they just love Britney Spears and will come over to abduct all of the * Got Talent, * Idol, * Factor show people. Or maybe they'll catch one of the many talks from Stephen Hawking from old broadcasts and think it would be a jolly good time to sit down and have a chat with him via their neural interface gadgetry. So there's no point in entertaining the thought of "What Would The Aliens Do?" any more than WWJD-shirts do.. just carry on doing what we're doing for our own (planet's) good.

Oh no no no. OBVIOUSLY, if aliens show up tomorrow, after having flown countless light years and having built a highly advanced macro-society the size of a galaxy, it is OBVIOUSLY humans who will be calling the shots. They may have bombs million times more powerful than a supernova and they may be able to derive their energy from teleporting, but surely we will be able to outsmart them, with all that we learned from Arnold movies and sitcoms.

Likely as that may seem there is always the possibility of some other scenario, such as that depicted in The Road Not Taken [wikipedia.org] where the aliens figure the humans are primitive and easily conquered only to discover that while humans may not yet have the tools for interstellar travel they are much more advanced in pretty much everything else, including warfare.

if et calls we should great them with the communication of the other animals on the planet (well some of them),first. Before grating them ourselfs.

this would show them that we can appreciate the communication of other life forms, and even put that communication before the communication of ourselfs.

If we are to communicate we need to demonstrate empathy, since the only thing we know about them is that they can communicate, empathy via appreciation of the communication of other life forms on our own planet may demonstrate we can empathize with them.

This should reduce fear and hostility towards us, and aid in good relations. in respect they may attempt to empathise with us a little more.

Chimpanzee's smile as a form of aggression and warning. And they're practically our siblings as far as genetics is concerned. We're talking ALIENS here. If a smile is that radically different between two species so closely related, what the hell kind of message would it mean for an organism that's not even FROM Earth?

I would hope that an alien species capable of something as ordinary as intergalactic travel would also have spent some time thinking this through and determined that our customs and social cues may not necessarily directly correlate to their own.

Aliens are already here and do not recognize SETI or any human government or group organization. They deal with and judge each human being on their individual merits and faults. For more information, see http://www.alliesofhumanity.org/ [alliesofhumanity.org]

There are only two main reasons anyone would bother to contact us: curiosity, or as a prelude to invasion. Given the not inconsiderable chances of the second (if you can communicate FTL, you can probably travel that way too...) I think Gordon Freeman would be a better choice.

Obviously, there's no good answer to this question. No matter who was picked, by whatever process, some group on the planet would resent it.

Personally I think Sagan had it right - we pick someone who doesn't have a religious or political agenda, is broadly educated especially in sciences, andwould be willing to perform the task.*

(Hmm... Richard Dawkins? *g*)

* No, really:

1) No religious agenda - doesn't matter whether or not the aliens have religion. If they don't, they'll likely think us backward. If they do, it's possible they will be offended by our version(s) - and it's certain that picking anyone who professes one major religion would piss off the other major religions.

2) No political agenda. I doubt I need to explain this one; the person will be speaking for ALL HUMANITY.

3) Broadly educated - in trying to understand a totally alien viewpoint, experience in many different fields would be essential.

4)... especially in the sciences - because it's likely anyone who *could* contact us would be extremely far along in the sciences. Unless they're doing it with telepathy...

Science? Are you kidding me? We need someone well trained in diplomacy to speak on our behalf. Someone who's only trained in science won't have the requisite background in deal making, understanding different points of view, and convincing others more powerful than we not to wipe us out. Honestly, I wouldn't trust a pure scientist on any of that.

No. Diplomats have preconceived notions that predicate on their experience negotiating between assholes with human agendas. You're almost suggesting to assign a psychologist to speak on our behalf. Shadowbearer's list of qualifications has a heavy basis in neutrality. We want that. A person who simply represents us as an average. Let the aliens who dragged themselves all this way decide if they like what we are.

No diplomats "spinning" things to make us look better than we are. I would really prefer t

I hear that France has already preemptively surrendered to ET because of this article.

Hilarious! A one-liner about French people being quick to surrender! That joke just never gets old! It's almost as funny as the "Polish people are stupid" jokes, or the "Jewish people like money" jokes! Maybe next you could tell one about lazy Mexicans...

So, you assume that atheists are correct and that aliens, assuming they even exist would be atheists?

Personally, I suspect that's true, but I don't know. However, I see three possibilities:

They have no religion.

They have a religion very similar to ours.

They have a religion unlike anything we've ever seen.

Now, of those, do you really think #2 is likely? (If you do, you probably should investigate how religion arose on this planet.)

No, the likelier possibilities are option #1, in which case, any religious individual would make us seem backwards and primitive; or #3, in which case, any religion we choose to represent would likely be weird and possibly offensive to them.

Who would you suggest? An obnoxious pompous prick like Dawkins?

Funny... when I believed, I thought the same way you did. About Randi, also.

Eventually, I realized that what I saw as "arrogance" was merely the courage to stand up to popular dogmas. They were attacking things I held dear, and that made me defensive, so of course I saw them as arrogant and disruptive.

real science, rather than trying to prove the non-existence of god.

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, and you might notice he's also written several books about that. If you investigate what he actually does with his time, you'll probably find he spends far more time doing exactly that -- real science.

You seem to be confused into thinking that all atheists are necessarily "militant atheists", and that this would be the first thing on their minds when they encounter an alien being. That's not the concern at all. The concern is that the last thing we want is to be trying to tell an alien the "good news".

Well, yes and no. We have some good theories, and we've watched real religions arise fairly recently -- cargo cults being the obvious example.

The best thing we could do is present an unbiased synopsis of religion as it exists wrt humanity, and explain to them that we are all individuals and that we try to do our best in letting each and every one of us hold our own beliefs.

That's unfortunately only true for a minority of the world.

Atheists, at least so far, haven't started any wars.

The AC pointed out Stalin. There are two crucial issues here: First, no one goes to the war in the name of atheism, while they do in the name of religion. Second, the term "atheist" simply means one who is not a theist -- there is no unifying belief or dogma, no requirement that atheists be scientifically mind

*shrug*
I've been atheist since about '78,79, somewhere there. Can't say, didn't wake up one day and say "There is no dog" or anything like that. Raised Lutheran, just didn't take; as Carlin said, I "reached the age of reason".
People who believe in tarot cards, or any other form of superstition or mysticism, are not atheists. I don't know where you get that definition from, but it isn't accurate. They may say they are, but they aren't.
I'll agree that atheism, by itself, is not necessarily rational

It is possible that our scientists could be mostly wrong about everything.

And pretty much every scientist out there agrees with you. It's the religious people who can't admit they're wrong, and that's the reason they shouldn't speak for us. Humility would indeed be the best practice.

Actually, I would disagree that there is a conflict between science and religion... well... the scientists don't think so, at least. The scientists: "We know the following stuff about how the world works - here's what our experiments tell us." The religious: "Scientists aren't agreeing with us on everything! They're a threat to us and they must be stopped!" Is it possible to have a conflict where really only one side is trying to 'beat' the other?

It is human arrogance and ignorance that lead us to these 'answers'. Do we have to have a figurehead to speak for all of us? What if the aliens want to talk to the 'everyman'. It is a human concept that we need an alpha to speak for all of us, and folly imho.

Not a slashdot poll but probably some sort of an online forum where people from around the world can vote on the questions to be asked would be a good start. Why does it have to be one person or a small group of people who speak for humanity when there is a way to let a large part of the humanity participate.

Perhaps ET will dress appropriately and drop himself in some backwater region and take up handyman work while talking to various local groups about stars and galaxies and destiny etc. if ET shows up, voluntarily or by force of accident.

It's just as likely that ET will have seen our broadcasts and decided this is not really the kind of neighborhood that they want to live in, never mind an occasional visit. Just the same, given mankind's penchant for xenophobia it's more likely than not that any ET who actual

That won't work, waggling that silly finger in the air will be a dead giveaway the guy is whack-job. If you really want to scare them, how about Ronald MacDonald, he should give anyone the heebie-jeebies. But if you really want to wind them up, I vote for Alan Greenspan. One look at what he "accomplished" and they won't dare send anyone near here lest the financial contagion wipes out their entire economy. If you think quantum mechanics is weird, you ain't seen nothing like the havoc entangled econotrons ca